From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:10:57 -0800 (PST)
To: "Cypherpunks (E-mail)" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
Message-ID: <01BC0D0D.2B707EE0@crecy.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote in article <5cg99p$7a@life.ai.mit.edu>...

> The part of it that comes out of their pocketbook does. Just like the part of
> 'the net' that I pay for belongs to me. The net is a bunch of computers,
> running software, hooked together over cables and other links. Each and
> EVERY ONE of these require installation, upkeep, repair, and utility
> support. This costs money. He who pays the money owns the net, everybody
> else is along for the ride.

The network is largely an intellectual creation. The hardware is
relatively unimportant, it can always be replaced.

> If we take your argument to its logical conclusion then once a box goes on
> the net it belongs to nobody/everybody. Clearly utter nonsense.

If you start from such a state and property centered ideology perhaps.
I'm a philosophical anarchist and I don't consider the state to have
"rights" over its "subjects", nor do I believe in the pure ideology of
property you do.

Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the
controllers of China literally so since they stole most of their "property"
from the previous rulers.

I believe that the relationship between a state and individual is
a much more complex one than the slavish subjection model
you propose. In this I am in agreement with practically every
philosopher since Locke.

It is true that there is the convenience of the state as agency but
the question is on whose behalf that agency is exercised. 

I see no reason why I should not meddle in the affairs of states
I'm not a 'subject" of. 

> If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody
> has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along
> with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't
> understand what is going on.

They are allowed to connect their machinery to the Internet so long 
as they are prepared to accept the Internet's ethic. They are not allowed
to have a free ride, to demand a valuable connection facility on their
own terms.

> ps I also support France's current attempt at forcing the Georgia university
>    web site on French soil to use French.

As a citizen of Europe I disagree. I believe that the narrow and
parochial attitude of the French province breaches undertakings in the
Treaty of Rome and under the European declaration of human rights.

France is not a sovereign state and does not have the right to
pass laws that infringe on the rights granted to European citizens
as a whole.

	Phill